With Oxbridge taking less and less private school students, is it still worth it??

[SillySmart]

stats shows that the number of private educated students Oxbridge enrolled has dropped 1/3 in the past 5 years. Any thoughts?

Yes for us 100% worth it but only you can make that decision. It depends whether you place more value on results/destination rather than the journey.

How would the people you heard this from judge the brightness of children?
A child with 3 A stars from a disadvantaged background may well be brighter than 3 A stars from a private school.

Private school doesn't necessarily mean brighter at all. Not all private schools are superselective; in fact, only a small fraction of them are. Most private schools have much lower result expectations at 11+, and they don't accept only really poor performers. This is because most private schools struggle to find "clients," that is, parents willing to pay for education – all of that is a result of the decline in the economy. Many private schools merge with others to survive at all. Grammar schools are a completely different story, and again, those who can afford to live in a grammar catchment and afford tutoring for 11+ are not poor. It is all down to affluence in the end.

When applying to Oxbridge, it is not solely about grades. They receive numerous applications with A*s. Nowadays, charity work holds significance in the application process, being as crucial as academic results. Applicants pursuing political degrees often engage in volunteering with refugees, while those applying for IT subjects volunteer at local schools, assisting with IT needs and addressing staff shortages. Participation in national competitions related to specific fields of interest is also a key aspect. Additionally, references and the motivation outlined in the letter play a crucial role. Personal circumstances are considered, and Oxford tends to favor students from underprivileged backgrounds. For instance, I know two Ukrainian girls who were accepted. Grades are just one component; it encompasses various factors.

My children are at a decent state primary but we plan to send them both to independent secondary within the next couple of years (hubby and I did the same as kids, state then independent).
I agree with pp, it’s 100% worth it if you can afford it:

1. smaller class sizes, more individual teaching, much harder for bright kids just to coast along without reaching their potential. (This was the main reason my parents sent us private for secondary - they both worked in state education for their whole careers).

2. less bad behaviour, and what there is is managed out. Teachers spend more time teaching and less time zookeeping.

3. It does depend on the school and admittedly I’m generalising but in selective independent schools academic achievement is not seen as “uncool” but instead something to aim for. Selective indies (and many non selective ones) tend to have high aspirations for pupils and the pupils have high aspirations for themselves. Compare with at least some state schools where bright children are told eg “there’s no point you applying to Oxbridge, you’ll never get in”. This may be different in grammar schools, I don’t know as we don’t live in a grammar school area.

4. better facilities, as a rule.

5. obviously some private schools are struggling and some will fail over the next few years. But that’s not the case for many independents- in contrast state system is absolutely on its knees. There are some amazing state teachers and heads doing a lot with very little but it is fundamentally broken. It would be a mistake to think the Labour government will waive a magic wand and instantly reverse the years of decline.

We did wonder about the whole Oxbridge thing and whether we’d be better moving into the catchment of our very good state secondary (we were less than 1m outside catchment last time - yes 1m!!!) but have decided to take our chances with that. They can always go to the US on a scholarship if they’re that bright but Oxbridge says no.

We’re very very lucky that grandparents will be funding private school - without that we could manage it but at quite a stretch. I think I would sacrifice quite a lot to go private but not jeopardise family solvency.

Yes, but do they ask if the grandparents attended uni too? I think this is something crucial that is missed. I.e. having more than the generation before you go to university affords a huge additional educational/knowledge capital and aspirations.

I would not send my child to private unless they get into a superselective. Simply, an average private school will not guarantee them any better education than a comprehensive. Private may be a better offer for sports and after-school clubs if they are included in the fee. If not, I would not bother. Comprehensive with private tutoring for 4 or 5 hours per week will be a better option, as they will have the individual focus of an educator. Choose tutors wisely.
As for superselective private or superselective grammar (not a county grammar with a 24 percent acceptance but a superselective), it may not have better teaching, but it is competitive and stimulating for a kid if they have a tough and resilient personality.
This is also down to what sort of comprehensive schools you have around. For example, we have absolutely fantastic ones here, and there are some within our catchment that are way above the national average with 5+ on GCSEs at 80 percent and 7+ also impressive, as well as great Progress 8 results. For me, it is a no-brainer that a good comprehensive and private tutoring is the best way, without sacrificing lifestyle with private. And who knows what the future holds for us? What if somebody loses a job and a kid is in a private school? In my opinion, an average private is not a solution for those who are very very comfortable financially and have enough savings that they can afford paying for school even if they lose a job. The average private school is a business and doesn't guarantee amazing results.
Otherwise, I would not consider it and move in the area with a good comprehensive.

I do think it's very inflammatory to use words like 'discriminated'. And whilst many top universities do make contextual offers, Oxford certainly does not - once a candidate is through to offer stage all offers are standard (as can be seen on their website. Can't speak for Cambridge.
What Oxford does do is contextualise certain parts of the (very lengthy) admissions process. So a candidate might have a slightly higher rating if they have significant outperformed their cohort at GCSE.
If posters are interested in how the admissions process works, read the article here which explains at length how carefully applicants are examined.

Alan Rusbridger: lifting the lid on Oxford admissions | Times Higher Education (THE)

selective independent schools academic achievement is not seen as “uncool” but instead something to aim for.

And exactly this kind of ethos is why many state comprehensive have excellent results. There are many comprehensive schools where it is " cool" to have good results. Not all comprehensive consists of thugs and low aspirations. Not without a reason Russel schools group mostly consists of kids attending state schools.

With superselective school the problem is that less than 1 percent of kids is getting in. And it doesn't really mean that those who didn't get in are not as good as those who did. It is easy to be in 2 percent but only geniuses and hothoused kids get in A lot depends also on speed, technique, kid maturity etc. Exams to superselective schools end up with disappointment and after a period of rationalising the parents are putting kids into an average private that put on amazing show during an open day that is just a hot air.

Your example specifically mentioned the parents level of education, which is information requested by UCAS.

Parents of applicants now would have likely been in higher education in the 1980s and 1990s / early 2000s. In the 1980s less than 20% of people participated in higher education, by 2000 this had risen to 33%.

If current applicants parents have not got degrees then it’s fairly unlikely that their grandparents would have either, given that in the 1960s only 9% of people participated in higher education.

Chris, it is more than A level and GCSE results. I wrote about it above- charity work, life circumstances like hardships they endured, national competitions, passions( e.g. instruments played) and so on. People don't know about it as it is not written in Admission prospectus. Then they are very 😞 disappointed because they were not aware that grades are not everything.

I meant that the applicant's parents and grandparents both had degrees. i.e. two generations (or more) of uni goers.

(a) I know plenty of my friends whose parents went to uni (we're in our mid/late 40s/early 50s). I.e. their children/applicants would have had 2 generations of uni goers before them (if not more).

(b) I also, of course, know lots of friends who did go to university as the first generation to do so (same as in my case).

So, the (a) category has an advantage compared to (b) but this is not reflected/asked about on UCAS.

@RedFluffyPanda with regard to Oxford, some of the things you mention are not rated at all. They care about academics and passion for the subject. Yes, national competitions are important but charity work and instruments played are irrelevant unless they somehow prepare a candidate better for interview or aptitude test. Oxford make this very clear in their admissions process, it's all about academics. My ds was told this very clearly when he attended a UNIQ day and told to waste no space on his UCAS form with anything other than his interest in his subject and anything directly related to it.

@BarqsHasBite
If going to the US is an option, you should start preparing soon by familiarizing yourself with the application process and figuring out how to prepare your students for the aptitude testing they will have to do as part of it.

@RedFluffyPanda charity work and so on carry no weight in the admissions process unless it is directly related to the subject applied for. Ditto musical instruments and so on. The idea that the acceptance of two Ukrainian candidates proves that preference is given to disadvantage applicants is risible.

Research shows that the biggest influence on the educational achievement of a child is the educational achievement of the mother. I’m not sure that going back generations before that is going to add that much, as it’s parental influence that will be the driver of expectations / attainment / opportunities.

Additionally, it will be become much more likely over time that applicants will have had parents and grandparents that have been to university.

I went to university in the 1980s and for the vast majority of my cohort we were the first generation to go. It wasn’t really an option for my parents generation (post war / 1950s), and educationally able women in the 1960s were still being pushed towards careers in teaching and nursing or secretarial work.

Edit: Just to add, I don’t think that your group (a) has any real advantage over group (b). Both groups have the advantage of parents participating in higher education over the group of applicants whose parents did not.

Passion for the subject is expressed in deeds. A person who does charity work in the field they are interested in scores higher than the one who just says I am passionate about it and waffle without evidence such as charity involvement in the field, competitions and courses taken The hobby is useful during the interview. Trust me they have thousands of applicants with A*s and those minor things make a difference

Red fluffy Panda wrote:
Applicants pursuing political degrees often engage in volunteering with refugees, while those applying for IT subjects volunteer at local schools, assisting with IT needs and addressing staff shortages

I am sorry but have you read what I written? I clearly was talking about subject that they want to pursue as quoted above. What sense would have a charity in unrelated field? I have never written about it

@RedFluffyPanda a passion for charity work might be something to write on a PS but the interviews (at Oxford) are purely academic and it would be unlikely to be discussed there. Admission test scores and the interview are the 2 most important important aspects that lead to an offer.
My ds had 3 interviews by 2 colleges and only had one question in all of the 3 interviews that was not directly a problem solving exercise related to the subject he wanted to study (it was a pretty standard 'warm up' question). He was asked nothing about anything on his PS (STEM subject). This experience matches that of every other applicant I know.
Oxford have a lot of very clear information on their website and also a lot of information after the admission cycles that break down how many candidates got what scores, how may got interviews etc. The process is pretty transparent and the tutors are looking for people who will thrive in that environment.

Having a good insight into the process, I don’t think that’s true in all cases. There are some state schools from which significant proportion of Oxbridge offers were made. These schools are in some of the affluent areas. Parents pay a higher price on houses to be in their catchment.
Many students are overly tutored in state schools. Not all private schools are sending or have a history of sending a large number of students to Oxbridge either. Those that have are for the quality of students they have , for these are highly selective.
All said those that are rich do not really care about Oxbridge as they can send their kids to other universities in US etc. where there is no social engineering going on thankfully !

i just feel that no good is being served by all this except that its a loss of Oxbridge if they do not strictly go on merits.

Did I mention that it is the passion for charity work per se? How hard it is to understand? . Charity work IN THE FIELD of studies. -
Red fluffy Panda wrote:
Applicants pursuing political degrees often engage in volunteering with refugees, while those applying for IT subjects volunteer at local schools, assisting with IT needs and addressing staff shortages

I have never heard about only academic interview. The only academic interview is not called interview but an exam measuring level of knowledge. One of the Ukrainian girls I know got to Oxford. She was talking during the interview about politics and her work with refugees. Nobody was examining her in subjects she took at A- level

Hi answering the main question here. It is a decision that is very much based on ones personal circumstances. First its a financial commitment for next 7 years. If this isn’t an issue then the next point is the school itself. In my opinion sending ones children to Oxbridge shouldn’t be the only motivation. One needs to visit the school several times preferably on a normal workday than open days to see if the ethos are in alignment with your family and if the environment is going to be suitable for your child. If a child isn’t happy in the school the outcome wouldn’t be good in terms of the experience and therefore it will impact the results as well. The next consideration is the time to travel. If this is significant, then whether its worth doing that?
If all these conditions are satisfactory and money isn’t an issue its a no brainer that a the right kind of private school that is suitable for the child would offer a much better rounded education.
if just Oxbridge is the only consideration then I would say both private and grammar ( academically good schools) send students to Oxbridge. Its on families to decide what works best for them!

What is the merit of someone at a very average comp who didn't take their GCSE's in 2020 but got CAG's of 8x9's and 2x8's which were identical to their mocks. Who decided to take a punt on Oxford at the end of Yr12 with next to no preparation or support other than a word in their year from one of their teachers and a hurried phone call to me asking if we'd ever discussed it (answer was no). Quick rush to get a PS written early and to register for Oxford test - didn't even know if it was free or we had to pay. No interview prep - was terrified at the thought of it but dealt with it by just not thinking about it. Had 4 interviews one of which was ok the other 3 terrible. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Against all expectations got an offer the following January from a college that had not interviewed. Managed to get A* x4 in first public exams. Left for Oxford. Now halfway through Yr2 and has just completed the ballot for accommodation in Yr3. Is loving it. Had flags all over the place and is part of the Opportunity Oxford cohort. If you are an outlier they do try and find you.

My son got a place at Oxford, after a state education. I have to tell you I had to fight tooth-and-nail to get his educational needs met and in fact taught him a fair deal of maths (his star subject) myself at primary school (with their blessing and the help of an LEA maths advisor because they admitted they had no more to teach him). I was incredibly lucky that he got a brilliant maths teacher in Secondary school who recognised his potential immediately and helped me to continue helping my son until the work was way above my own head, because the teacher could do only so much to help.
He spent time at Oxford as part of the selection process and a lot of the decision was based on how he performed across various tasks at that point.
A decent private education might have made it easier for him to get the teaching he needed. I think Oxford recognise this. The quality of other students he met blew my mind. One of them was practically self-taught in English as a second language as an incredible mathmetician.
He went on to do very well at Oxford, which I guess is how Oxford decide on forward policy.

@thing47

there you go again without citing the so called research? Which research are you talking about?

There are many reports citing the fact that Oxbridge infact has lowered the criteria for students from state.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/20/oxford-university-agrees-let-disadvantaged-students-lower-grades/

It is a welcome if the students from underprivileged backgrounds are getting the same education as those who can afford. But its far from the truth. We do not need such important institutions that are doing well ( in private sector) weighed down with an invidious form of identity politics that looks on applications from independent schools with a measure of suspicion. We should not punish students for doing well.
https://thecritic.co.uk/you-cant-level-up-oxbridge/

I would rest my case here as clearly it makes no sense saying anything when education is being politicised and the discussion isn’t on the topic but rather pointless. Go on babbling if you would like but I am done!